coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants, Mrs Elene Dadiani and Mr David Machabeli, were born in 1923 and 1964 respectively and live in Tbilisi. The second applicant is the first applicant’s nephew. The first applicant’s mother was deprived of her land and other assets by the Soviet authorities in the 1920s.
6.  In 2004 the applicants brought an action against the relevant local authority, seeking restitution of their ancestral lands. In support of their claim, the applicants submitted archives confirming their ancestor’s title to the claimed land and, as a legal basis, referred to general rules on the protection of property and inheritance contained in the Civil Code, the Constitution and the international human-rights treaties ratified by Georgia.
7.  In a judgment of 31 January 2005, the Gurjaani District Court established the applicants’ joint ownership of land situated in the village of Bakurtsikhe. The land was officially identified as “plot no. 604”. The defendant local authorities did not lodge an appeal and the judgment became binding.
8.  On 15 February 2005 the applicants’ lawyer obtained from the Gurjaani District Court the necessary enforcement writ, the relevant part of which read as follows:
“Elene Dadiani and David Machabeli are hereby recognised as ... the co-owners of plot no. 604 in the village of Bakurtsikhe.” ...
9.  On 26 October 2005 the applicants, acting through their lawyer, submitted a copy of the enforcement writ together with the final judgment of 31 January 2005 to the Gurjaani Public Registry for enforcement. In a letter of 2 November 2005, the registrar replied that it was not possible to register the land in the applicants’ name, as their documentation was incomplete. The lawyer was found to be at fault for the fact that the final judgment neither indicated the size of plot no. 604 nor specified its category: agricultural or non-agricultural. The lawyer was further invited to submit a copy of his identity document, the authority form proving his right to represent the applicants, the original enforcement writ and the cadastral plan of the land in question.
10.  The applicants maintained, relying on the billing information from the lawyers for the relevant period of time, that after receipt of the letter of 2 November 2005 the lawyers, acting on their behalf, had visited the Gurjaani Public Registry on several occasions and voiced their concerns regarding the failure to enforce the judgment. They claimed, inter alia, that they were not in a position to produce an amended final court decision. In reply, the Gurjaani Public Registry refused to register plot no. 604 for various reasons.
11.  The judgment of 31 January 2005 still remains unenforced.
12.  On 25 May 2005 the applicants lodged another action claiming, on the same legal basis, ownership of plot no. 646, adjacent to plot no. 604. The action was registered by the Gurjaani District Court on the same day.
13.  According to the applicants, the examination of their second action has not started yet.
4.  The applicants were born in 1939, 1937, 1940 and 1949, respectively. The first applicant lives in the village of Konstantynopil, the second and the third applicants in Melitopol and the fourth applicant in Ivano-Frankivsk
5.  On 14 February 2000 the first applicant initiated a land-related dispute with an agricultural enterprise.
6.  Following two remittals of the case by the appellate court to the first‑instance court for fresh examination, on 15 April 2004 the Velyka Novosilka Town Court found against the first applicant.
7.  On 1 July 2004 and 5 September 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (sitting as a court of cassation), respectively, upheld the aforementioned judgment.
8.  There were eight adjournments in the proceedings due to the defendant company’s failure to appear for hearings. The first applicant’s absence caused one such adjournment.
II.  proceedings instituted by the SECOND AND THE THIRD applicantS
9.  On 1 December 1995 the second and the third applicants initiated a land dispute against their neighbour.
10.  On 20 November 2007 the proceedings, which had taken place before the courts of three levels of jurisdiction, were completed by a final ruling of the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (sitting as a cassation court) finding against the applicants.
11.  In the course of the proceedings, there was one remittal of the case from the appellate court to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. The courts also ordered five forensic technical expert examinations. Furthermore, there were nine adjournments in the proceedings due to the parties’ failure to appear for hearings.
III.  proceedings instituted by the FOURTH applicant
12.  On 13 November 2000 the fourth applicant instituted a civil dispute against his neighbour seeking acknowledgement of his entitlement to a land plot and a permit to pursue certain construction works. Subsequently, the local authorities were involved in the proceedings as defendants. The fourth applicant’s neighbour, in turn, brought a counterclaim.
13.  Following the examination of the case by the courts of two levels of jurisdiction which had allowed the fourth applicant’s claim in part, on 21 January 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions for the most part and remitted the case back to the first-instance court for fresh examination.
14.  According to the parties, the proceedings remain pending before the first-instance court.
15.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant amended his claims several times. The courts also ordered four forensic technical expert examinations at the defendants’ requests.
5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Prijedor.
6.  Before the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the applicant lived in Bosanska Krupa in a socially owned flat over which he had an occupancy right (the concept of “socially owned flats” is described below).
7.  On 14 October 2002 the competent administrative authority confirmed the applicant’s occupancy right over the flat in Bosanska Krupa, but stated, however, that the building in which the flat was located had been destroyed during the war.
8.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant asked the local authority to allocate him a replacement flat. However, he did not receive any reply.
9.  On 13 December 2004 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the local authority before the Bosanska Krupa Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”), seeking to be allocated a replacement flat. On 16 February 2005 the Municipal Court invited the local authority to submit a response to the applicant’s claim. As they failed to do so, the Municipal Court adopted a judgment on 25 March 2005 without a hearing, in accordance with section 182 of the Civil Procedure Act 2003 (see paragraph 18 below). It held that the applicant was entitled to a replacement flat because his occupancy right over a destroyed flat had been confirmed by the competent administrative authority. Therefore, it ordered the local authority to allocate him a suitable replacement flat in Bosanska Krupa, in lieu of the one in respect of which he had had an occupancy right and which had been destroyed during the war. Pursuant to the aforementioned provision of the Civil Procedure Act 2003, that judgment became final on the same date (see paragraph 18 below).
10.  On 1 June 2005 the Municipal Court rejected the local authority’s request for restitutio in integrum. It would appear that they did not appeal to a higher court.
11.  On 23 March 2006 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings. On 4 May 2006 the Municipal Court refused to issue a writ of execution, stating that the judgment of 25 March 2005 was not enforceable because it did not contain any indication of the location and the surface area of the replacement flat. That decision was upheld by the Bihać Cantonal Court ("the Cantonal Court") on 20 December 2006.
12.  On 16 March 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 March 2005. On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court upheld the rulings of the lower courts and instructed the applicant to start new civil proceedings against the local authority in order to establish the latter’s precise obligation regarding the flat to be allocated to him. That decision was delivered to the applicant on 11 August 2008.
13.  It would appear that the judgment of 25 March 2005 remains unenforced. It would also appear that the applicant did not start new civil proceedings against the local authority.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Baku.
5.  On 22 January 1998 the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of the Baku City Executive Authority’s order of 19 January 1998.
6.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by J. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Aghdam, a region under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
7.  On an unspecified date in 1998, the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of J. and his family from the flat.
8.  On 7 July 1998 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant’s request. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 22 January 1998 and, therefore, the flat was unlawfully occupied by J. and his family. No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within ten days after its delivery.
9.  According to the applicant, J. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and the competent authorities did not take any measures to enforce it for many years.
10.  According to the Government’s letter of 17 May 2012, the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in April 2012.
5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ljubljana.
6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 3 April 2009 and 3 March 2010. From 3 to 11 April 2009 he was held in cell 123 (second floor) measuring 16.28 square metres. The cell, apart from the furniture, contained six sleeping places (three bunk beds). According to the applicant, six prisoners were being held in the cell during his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between five and six. He was subsequently moved to cell. 1 on the third floor, where he stayed until the end of his sentence on 3 March 2010. The cell measured 16.68 square metres. The cell contained, apart from the furniture, five sleeping places (two bunk beds and a single bed). According to the Government the number of prisoners varied between four and five.
7.  During his detention the applicant received six visits from a friend. Between 28 April and 1 June 2009 the applicant’s visits took place through a glass partition, as he had been suspected of receiving drugs from his visitor. The same decision was made with regard to the period between 27 August 2009 and 3 March 2010. The applicant received ninety-four letters and sent out eighty-nine. Envelopes were opened on fourteen occasions to check on enclosed items. The applicant did not appeal against this measure.
8.  According to the prison records, the applicant was receiving methadone maintenance treatment during his imprisonment. In addition, he had ten consultations with a general practitioner and five dental appointments.
9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011. As to the out-of-cell time, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that the sentenced prisoners held in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (ibdi., § 86). As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5-5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.
5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Płock.
6.  On 30 May 2004 the applicant was arrested. Two days later, on 1 June 2004 the Gostynin District Court decided to remand him in custody.
7.  By a judgment of 27 June 2005 the Płock Regional Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and other offences and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. On 3 November 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.
8.  On an unspecified later date the court granted the applicant’s request to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case for the purposes of filing a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
9.  In a letter of 6 February 2006 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer informed the Warsaw Court of Appeal that she had found no grounds on which to lodge a cassation appeal.
10.  By a letter of 7 February 2006 the Registry of the Warsaw Court of Appeal forwarded the legal-aid lawyer’s statement to the applicant. The letter read as follows:
“The Registry of the Warsaw Court of Appeal ... forwards, enclosed, a copy of a letter of your legal-aid lawyer, for your information. Please be informed that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal expires on 13 February 2006.”
11.  This Warsaw Court’s of Appeal letter, together with the legal-aid lawyer’s letter of 6 February 2006, were served on the applicant on an unspecified date after 7 February 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Žilina.
6.  On 26 November 2004 the Považská Bystrica District Court remanded the applicant in custody in connection with criminal proceedings in which he was accused of several offences.
7.  On 20 May 2005 a public prosecutor indicted the applicant before the Považská Bystrica District Court.
8.  On 10 August 2005 the applicant requested that he be released from detention. He argued that his detention under the decision of 26 November 2004 had expired on 25 May 2005 and that no decision had been taken to extend it.
9.  The District Court dismissed the applicant’s request on 23 August 2005. On 12 September 2005 the Trenčín Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision.
10.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
11.  On 15 November 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant of two offences and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on the same day.
12.  On 6 December 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court, by its decision of 12 September 2005, had breached the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, his detention had been unlawful between 26 May 2005 and 15 November 2005, as the District Court had not delivered a decision extending the applicant’s detention.
13.  The Constitutional Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision, awarded the equivalent of 1,970 euros (at that time) in compensation to the applicant and ordered the Regional Court to reimburse the costs of the applicant’s legal representation in the constitutional proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Osijek.
6.  On 11 December 2002 the applicant sought enforcement of a monetary obligation stipulated in a notary deed (javnobilježnička isprava) against Mr S.T. before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).
7.  On 10 April 2003 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution by seizure and sale of S.T.’s immovable property in satisfaction of the applicant’s claim of 186,278.40 Croatian kunas (HRK). The proceedings are still pending.
8.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
9.  On 25 May 2009 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 6,000 in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to complete the enforcement within seven months of service of its decision.
10.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 2 September 2009 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) awarded her additional HRK 2,000 in compensation. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 21 September 2009.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  On 15 April 2003 the applicant’s acquaintance Ms P. died of a knife wound following a dispute involving four persons, including the applicant.
6.  On 27 June 2003 an investigator of the Darnytskyy District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of Ms P.’s negligent homicide. Namely, the applicant was suspected of having accidentally pushed Ms P. on the knife held by another person. The applicant undertook not to leave his place of residence.
7.  On 2 July 2003 the applicant was indicted and the case was transferred to the Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Darnytskyy Court”) for trial.
8.  On 22 August 2003 the Darnytskyy Court started the trial.
9.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant filed several petitions and complaints, in particular three times challenging the presiding judge and once the prosecutor, and seeking remittal of the case for additional investigation. Hearings were adjourned six times: on three occasions the adjournments followed the applicant’s petitions challenging the judge, once it was due to the witnesses’ absence and twice – because the judge was ill or busy in another trial.
10.  On 10 August 2005 the Darnytskyy Court referred the case for additional investigation as requested by the applicant.
11.  On 8 February 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that ruling following the prosecutor’s appeal and remitted the case back to the first-instance court for examination.
12.  On 25 December 2006 the Darnytskyy Court however again decided that additional investigation was required in the case.
13.  On 15 May 2007 the additional investigation, which included questioning the witnesses, two forensic examinations and a repeated crime scene inspection, was completed. Meanwhile, on 5 May 2007 the investigator additionally charged the applicant with hooliganism associated with arms’ handling and confiscated his gun. This charge was severed from the criminal case at hand.
14.  On 30 July 2008 the Darnytskyy Court remitted the case for additional investigation once again. It noted that the pre-trial investigation undertaken had been incomplete and superficial.
15.  On 24 September 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.
16.  On 12 November 2009 the investigator discontinued the investigation for the absence of sufficient proof of the applicant’s guilt.
5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in İzmir.
6.  On 5 December 1994 the applicant was exposed to an electric shock from the power grid which was placed on the balcony of her house.
7.  On 17 November 1995 she introduced a judicial proceeding before the Uşak Civil Court for damages. In the course of the proceedings the Civil Court requested six expert reports on the partition of liability which were concluded by different experts between 23 October 1998 and 25 December 1999.
8.  On 2 March 2000, the Uşak Civil Court decided on the case in favour of the applicant.
9.  On 4 December 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.
10.  After the decision was quashed by the Court of Cassation, the Forensics Medicine Institute concluded a new report with a higher rate of working capacity loss. Upon the new rate two more expert reports were concluded between 28 January 2001 and 15 January 2003.
11.  On 1 July 2003 the Uşak Civil Court decided in favour of the applicant.
12.  On 21 April 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.
13.  On 18 January 2005 the Uşak Civil Court decided on the case and partially awarded the request of the applicant.
14.  On 26 September the Court of Cassation upheld that decision.
7.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1975 respectively and live in Rome.
8.  Following the birth of their daughter in 2006, the applicants learned that they were healthy carriers of cystic fibrosis[1]. The child had been born with the disease.
9.  In February 2010, when the first applicant was pregnant again, the applicants, who wanted to have a healthy child unaffected by the genetic disease, had a prenatal test carried out. The results showed that the foetus was affected by cystic fibrosis. The applicants then decided to have the pregnancy terminated on medical grounds.
10.  The applicants now want to take advantage of assisted reproduction technology (hereafter “ART”) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis[2] (hereafter “PGD”) before the first applicant becomes pregnant again. However, under Law no. 40 of 19 February 2004, ART is available only to sterile or infertile couples. There is a blanket ban on the use of PGD.
11.  By a decree of 11 April 2008, the Ministry of Health extended access to ART to couples in which the man suffers from a sexually transmissible viral disease (such as the HIV virus, or hepatitis B and C) to allow them to conceive children without the risk of contamination of the woman and/or the fœtus inherent in conception by natural means.
12.  According to the information provided by the Government and the first third-party intervener, this operation is done by “sperm washing” prior to in vitro fertilisation.